13.07.2015 Views

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoristic and imperfective aspectis modelled <strong>in</strong> underspecification <strong>for</strong>malisms like the Constra<strong>in</strong>t Language <strong>for</strong>Lambda Structures (Egg, Koller, and Niehren 2001, Egg 2005) or UnderspecifiedDiscourse Representation Theory (Reyle 1993, Reyle, Rossdeutscher, andKamp 2007), which are designed to give a more pr<strong>in</strong>cipled account of ambiguityand re<strong>in</strong>terpretation. I leave it to future research to implement my account<strong>in</strong> such a <strong>for</strong>malism.Let’s <strong>in</strong>stead turn to imperfective aspect, which imposes no aspectual classrestrictions on its argument.4.7 Imperfective and coercion: the habitual<strong>in</strong>terpretationIn section 4.5 we have seen that with aoristic aspect, the Duration Pr<strong>in</strong>cipleguides the choice <strong>for</strong> a specific coercion operator from the set of permissibleoperators. Coercion is triggered by a mismatch <strong>in</strong> aspectual class. Imperfectiveaspect, on the other hand, does not impose aspectual class restrictions. Itcomb<strong>in</strong>es happily with bounded as well as unbounded predicates. Nevertheless,the Duration Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple plays a role with imperfective aspect too, although adifferent one: it triggers coercions by its own. In this section I will argue thatthis is how the habitual <strong>in</strong>terpretation comes about. Note the similarity withthe functions of the Duration Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple <strong>in</strong> English (section 3.3.3): there, too,the Duration Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple can guide <strong>in</strong>dependently motivated coercion and triggerits own coercions.We have seen <strong>in</strong> section 4.3 that imperfective aspect <strong>in</strong>dicates that thetime of the eventuality <strong>in</strong>cludes the topic time and that this semantics directlyyields the <strong>in</strong>terpretation that the eventuality is go<strong>in</strong>g on, the processual<strong>in</strong>terpretation. If the topic time is longer than the time associated with thepredicate, however, a literal, that is, processual, <strong>in</strong>terpretation is not available.The mismatch <strong>in</strong> duration can then be solved by the <strong>in</strong>tervention of a coercionoperator that lengthens the time associated with the predicate. This is exactlywhat a habitual operator does: the time of a habit of a certa<strong>in</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d is longerthan the time of s<strong>in</strong>gle occurrences of eventualities of this k<strong>in</strong>d. Figure 4.10serves to illustrate this.topic timeeventuality time be<strong>for</strong>e re<strong>in</strong>terpretationeventuality time after re<strong>in</strong>terpretation❄ HAB Figure 4.10: Habitual re<strong>in</strong>terpretationLike <strong>in</strong>gressivity, habituality is a complex issue and I provisionally proposethe operator HAB as def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> (126):

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!